I really can't, I could give you the dictionary definition but that wouldn't advance anything since I don't see the context and how it applies to the discussion.You can oblige by answering the previous question...
My experience is that the old K-55/K-400 midrange and K-77 tweeter drivers/horns were as much of a limitation on sound quality as the time alignment and amplitude/phase response (i.e., transfer function) that was limited by the crossover (balancing) networks. Once you get a stock Khorn from years passed dialed in and tri-amped with the old drivers/horns, the difference wasn't quite as great as one might like to hear. However, having come from 1st-gen Jubilee performance, it's easy to hear what you get by tri-amping an old pair of Khorns--and what you don't....Sure these speakers were by convention, too far apart, but there was a palpable soundstage between them, vocalists planted centrally, the balance pretty good too (like the Quad 57, easily adjusted to in a minute or so after some hours listening to smaller boxy sounding speakers) and the whole rig was one that you could turn on, pop a disc into the player (or tune in a radio station) and then easily forget the system in favour of the music itself. very few of this speaker system found its way over here, but I'm glad I got to hear a more modern set and have warm positive vibes about that session all these years later.
I'd really like to hear how the current babies in the range sound, now they've been tweaked and refined a little. A pair of smaller floor standers with copper-coloured-cones in the early noughties, screamed too much to be taken seriously here, but things seem to have hugely moved on now![]()
Are you an engineer or physicist? What is your background? (I ask because this discussion is now getting down to a level where it would help a lot if I understood what your knowledge of engineering is..)I really can't, I could give you the dictionary definition but that wouldn't advance anything since I don't see the context and how it applies to the discussion.
Engineering studies, but that was a long time ago.Are you an engineer or physicist? What is your background? (I ask because this discussion is now getting down to a level where it would help a lot if I understood what your knowledge of engineering is..)
Chris
Assuming both your SS and tubes are load and frequency invariant, despite the tube having higher harmonic distortion, why would you expect them to be different? Horn is already very efficient, even with the low amount of tube power, you should get sufficient SPL at your listening distances.I tried various amplification from solid state to tubes but for me never got it right.
I agree.Having owned a few heritage Klipsch speakers in the past, I know what a pain it can be to make them sing… I tried various amplification from solid state to tubes but for me never got it right. I guess in overdamped rooms they might work best… but that‘s not my cup of tea.
Okay, the reason that the original question was asked in the video with Roy was because it was observed that Klipsch loudspeakers often do not "measure well" (a subject that we have actually been examining from the standpoint that there is more than one way to measure and to optimize each loudspeaker design). This is a systemic characteristic.Engineering studies, but that was a long time ago.
It's not only Toole who says a flat frequency response is more important. JJ has said that we should equalise to the on-axis frequency response, because that is what our ears lock on to first.
Now Toole's listener preference studies have their own issues (which I discussed somewhere else on ASR)
I think that it could be the rise in AM distortion at listenable levels. There is about 20 dB of EQ boost that's in the bass channel at 20-25 Hz relative to ~100 Hz (i.e., 10x the amplitude) which complicates the problem of AM distortion due to a really big EQ boost.
You showed this graph and said that the large EP spike in the 2nd graph is audible. Then you went on to say that eliminating it creates more bass impact and eliminates harshness.
I find this very interesting because I have heard Klipsch Jubilees, and found them virtually unlistenable due to harshness.
Clearly, I missed this earlier. I think the word hyperbole likely applies to your use of the word "unlistenable" in this case. I've heard a lot of loudspeakers in a lot of environments, but virtually none of them could I apply that word to their performance. I instead suspect your recordings listened to during auditioning and/or the room acoustics and setup....or simply your listening preferences/hearing acuity.I find this very interesting because I have heard Klipsch Jubilees, and found them virtually unlistenable due to harshness.
I've heard Cornwalls sound unlistenable (what constitutes unlistenable will vary from person to person but I admit my standards are fairly high). I cannot name the music played but it was undemanding jazz type fayre.Clearly, I missed this earlier. I think the word hyperbole likely applies to your use of the word "unlistenable" in this case. I've heard a lot of loudspeakers in a lot of environments, but virtually none of them could I apply that word to their performance. I instead suspect your recordings listened to during auditioning and/or the room acoustics and setup.
But unfortunately, this is not the first time I've run into this sort of thing. I question the circumstances under which you listened to them. If you describe the room size and placement in-room in which you heard them, it might help to dissuade my assessment of the likelihood of this condition. Also, you would need to describe the exact music selections you used for your audition, since these loudspeakers do ruthlessly expose any defects in mastering, etc.
What I have empirically found, however, is that all-pass phase growth from the crossover filters = harshness. If you eliminate the all-pass phase growth due to the 4th order crossover filters used in the Klipsch DSP box, you eliminate the induced harshness. Any other harshness you might encounter would mostly come from the recordings themselves.
Here are some examples of an unlistenable recordings made listenable via declipping and re-EQing.
Chris
Not sure what you mean? The discussion is about Klipsch not specifically the Jubilees.Cornwalls are not Jubilees (not even close...even if the Cornwalls are tri-amped and dialed in). They are very far apart in almost all acoustic performance areas.
Why not just switch brands?Cornwalls are not Jubilees (not even close...even if the Cornwalls are tri-amped and dialed in). They are very far apart in almost all acoustic performance areas.
Cornwalls come in varieties. I suspect your assessment would change if you listened to CW IVs instead of CW Is-IIIs.
I own a pair of Heresy Is that now stay in the garage. I don't listen to them. The same is true for the Cornwall Is--they sit in storage, and Khorn clones. The Belle bass bins are in use in my 5.1 array as surrounds (bi-amped) with stacked AMT-1s on top. I don't use the old Belle midrange/tweeter top sections.
Who says they are?...Given the Jubilee is $55K there's not really any excuse for them to be flawed in any way...
My comment was to avoid confusing the acoustic performance of a Cornwall I-III with a Jubilee. There is a chasm of difference acoustically.Not sure what you mean? The discussion is about Klipsch not specifically the Jubilees.